OCR Text |
Show -100- HARVARD LAW REVIEW Vol. 35 « 1921-1922. INTERSTATE COMPACTS AS A MEANS OF SETTLING DISPUTES BETWEEN STATES c ¦¦- Three methods have been used in the United States to avoid or determine controversies, potential or existing, between states: (l) Direct legislation by Congress« (2) A suit by one state,, either in its political capacity or as parens patriae,1 against the other state, in the United States Supreme Courts (3) -A- compact between states approved., when necessary,, by Congress« The first of the methods is narrow in scope? because Congress may interfere between states only when its constitutional powers permit it to do so c^ Congress has full power over the territories, however, and by fixing their boundaries and jurisdictional limits before they became states^ 4 has doubtless anticipated much interstate dissension. The second method is more inclusive Whatever doubt there may be to what constitutes an interstate cause of action, it is undisputed.that the Constitution -? gave states a remedy for recognized legal wrongs & Missouri v Illinois and Sanitary District, 180 U S 208 (1901): Kansas v Colorado, 185 U« S- 125 (1902): New York v. New Jersey and Sewer- age Commissioners, U. S. Sup. Ct, Oct. Term, 1920, No* 2, Original Of Georgia v Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U* S« 230 (1907). Legislation as to navigable interstate waters is the instance most in point * See Escanaba Co v Chicago, 107 U. S 678, 682 (1882)s United States v Rio Grande Irrigation Co, 1714 U<> S 690, 708 (1899). See, as instances., 33 STAT AT L. 714 (consent to Arkansas to ex- tend her western boundary at the expense of a territory); 26 STAT* AT L 971.* 36 STAT.. AT L 1454 (confirming and reaffirming the boundary line between the state of* Texas and the territory of New Mexico). See George C Lay, "Inter- state Controversies," 54. AM. L."rEV. 705. 710. ^Boundaries and jurisdictional limits are laid down in the enabling acts,, It is common in such acts to give states concurrent jurisdiction over boundary- waters. State v. Moyers, 155 Iowa 678, 136. N. W 896 (1912)5 State v George, 60 Minn, 503, 63 N. W, 100 (1895)5 Roberts vw Fullertom, 117 Wis, 222. 93 N, W-6 IIII (I903)o 5Art* III, Sec* 2, Cl. I. In colonial days, disputes between the colonies were settled by the Privy Council* See Penn v, Lord Baltimore, I Veso Ua5 (1750). See 2 STORY CO?1TiENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, 5 edo Sees* 1679, 1681, Under the Articles of Confederation, Art* IX; there was a provision for the appointment of commissions, with an appeal to Congress, but of eight proceedings commenced under this procedure, only three cases were actually heardP and only one was finally settled,, Eleven interstate disputes survived the Confederation. See Fowler t , Lindsay, 3 Dalle (U. S.) IjIIl (1799); Rhode Island vc Massachusetts, 12 Pet, (Us S«) 657 (1838). See PUTNEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Sec0 62j William Co Colem«a, "The State as a Defendant/1 31 IIARV0 L. REV. 210, 211; Carman Fo Randolph, "Notes on Suits Between States," 2 COL. Lo REV. 283, |